Forum Change Announcement

[Tom Westbrook]

Our experiment with an unmoderated, any-topic-goes Lounge has largely failed. After a lot of discussion among the moderators, we've concluded that it is in the best long-term interest of the forum to "outlaw" discussions of politics and religion, either as thread starters or within posts/responses, anywhere on the forum, including the Lounge. The Lounge will remain for discussions on non-LF, but preferably photography-related, discussions and general socializing. Also, just to be clear, the same standards of behavior described in the guidelines will apply to The Lounge.

Depending on the nature of the post, members who violate the no-politics/religion rule anywhere on the forum will be warned, and the post/thread deleted. Repeated violations will result in suspension of that person's posting privileges, potentially on a permanent basis, at the discretion of the moderators.

Additionally, it appears that several members have registered multiple user IDs, at least in part to augment Lounge discussions or positions elsewhere on the forum. Multiple-ID registrations will not be tolerated and persons found to have done so, and continue to use them, will be permanently banned at the discretion of the moderators. If you have one or more secondary IDs not approved by the moderators in advance, let us know immediately so we can close the secondary accounts without penalty.

--The Moderator Team

[willwilson]

What? That is silly.
---

This is the one place that I have found frank, informative, and relatively low key discussions of a wide array of topics. This is a simple case of if you don't want to read you don't have to. I was an active forum participant before I even knew what was being discussed in the lounge.

No need to play censor, this is not china, or I hope its not.

[Mark Sawyer]

Too bad about the Lounge... I thought it was a success, in as much as it had "spirited" participation and kept the other forums more religion/politics free.

I may have another account, but I'm not sure. A couple of years ago, I left my account logged in from he high school, and one (or more) of my students changed my user name to "William Mortenson". (Yep, we'd just covered the Adams/Mortenson thing...) Some of my old posts are still under that name, while newer ones are under my name, but I think they're all on one account. Gotta love high school kids...

[Colin Graham]

Wow, that is disappointing.

[Walter Calahan]

But photography IS a religious experience, especially when the imagery pushes political boundaries.

So much for me lounging. HA!

[Edwin Beckenbach]

Oh well, It's not like there's anything worth discussing going on politically these days.
I'm sure people will be on their best behavior and if not the forum will benefit greatly from losing many of it's most entertaining members.

[Daniel_Buck]

me personally, I come to a photography forum to read and discuss photography. I turned the lounge off, and enjoyed the forum much better :)

[BILL3075]

[B]THANK YOU ! THANK YOU ! THANK YOU !

BILL

[Ken Lee]

There are plenty of other places for people to share ideas about politics and religion.

I respect the decision of the team.

[Greg Lockrey]

Shouldn't this be posted in the "Lounge". I know that some of those guys don't ever come up here for fresh air. :)

[Hector.Navarro]

I am a relatively new member, and my interest here is large format photography and related issues. I rarely read anything on the lounge.

I have previously stated (another thread) that there is a need for an off-topic forum, although not un-moderated.

While some might find disturbing to have this change, I think it is healthy for the forum to not get into theological & political discussions here that will not get us anywhere but raising up political & religious barriers among us. (color vs. b&w is enough! :-) )

There are better places for such dialogs, I respect this decision.

Best Regards

[Deane Johnson]

A wise decision.

[Rick Moore]

I think the moderators have made a wise decision. The bitter feelings developed in the Lounge can't help but affect the tone of discussions in the other areas. This is just human nature. Your disk space and bandwidth are better used for large format photography. As Ken said above, it's not like the Internet is short of blogs and fora devoted to politics, religion, miscogeny, whatever. I come here for LFF, nothing else.

[Juergen Sattler]

The lounge made this entire forum look bad - it was embarrasing to read some of the posts. This is a photography forum and not a place to fight over religious or political views. I applaud the moderators.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

A wise decision.

A wise decision only because you were offended. What about everyone else in the Lounge that was enjoying their discussions?

[David Luttmann]

Thank god....ooops.

[BarryS]

I think you guys made the right call. I've seen other forums seriously damaged by endless political arguments that spill over into the other discussions. I see it here sometimes and agree it's better to focus the forum resources on what binds us together--the love of large format photography.

[Ash]

No matter what people say, they will still find bias for or against other members from what is said in the lounge.

If somebody insults or directly attacks your views on anything, you will (as human nature intended) feel the desire to be negative in return. By limiting the Lounge I think this will no longer be an issue.

I don't think there are any two more volatile subjects than Religion and Politics (in some senses they are the same), other than film-vs-digital ;)

EDIT: Realised I'm echoing Rick here :)

[Daniel Grenier]

As an apolitical staunch Left Wing Conservative and God-fearing Atheist I applaude your move.....I think.

[Kino]

Thank God.

We can now all go back to photographing those neglected rocks and trees!

[Sal Santamaura]

An excellent decision. Now I won't need to go there to correct incorrect "facts." Thanks.

[Rodney Polden]

I wonder what we all need to be totally reassured about, before we can simply be comfortable with the novel idea of "Free Speech".

It does seem alarming to me that many in the USA have so much apparent difficulty with a) expressing ideas thoughtfully and peaceably, and b) allowing forums to continue to exist where people can express ideas that some don't agree with.

Free speech does not mean allowing someone to say what you agree with, it means allowing someone to say something even when you don't agree with it. It's called democracy and freedom - subjects that the US regularly encourages the rest of the world to get involved in.

The absence or rarity of venues (throughout society) in which people can have serious and insightful discussion about topics that concern them, is a far greater threat to true democracy than "people-with-bombs" etc. will ever be.

I understand the moderators are feeling pressure to respond to the disgust expressed by those with little tolerance for contrary opinions and forceful language, but I suspect this may be one more venue for free speech that is being shut down. Let's think for a moment about who exactly benefits by that loss...

We can all aspire to a greater maturity than this decision represents, can we not?

If ever there was a time that the world needed us to talk peacefully and constructively together about how to save the planet (and humankind) from the mess that we are thrusting it into, surely that time is now.

Thank you to all the moderators and owner(s) for this great resource that is the Large Format Photography Forum.
(Please pardon the duplication, if you have already seen this reply on another thread - it seemed this was where it really belonged)

[Frank Petronio]

Com'on.... Cheney put you up to this didn't he?

Thank God we can at least still talk about incestous underage beastiality and necrophilia with dwarves in bondage.

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

There are tons of political and religious discussion boards out there.

Anyone got photos of waterfalls?

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

...
Thank God we can at least still talk about incestous underage beastiality and necrophilia with dwarves in bondage.

Oooh oooh! I thought I was alone in wanting to discuss those topics!

[matthew blais]

Applauding your decision (clap clap clap)

Can you delete all the Pol. threads?

[rknewcomb]

Com'on.... Cheney put you up to this didn't he?

Thank God we can at least still talk about incestous underage beastiality and necrophilia with dwarves in bondage.


Not unless you're photographing them....

[Frank Petronio]

It's a slippery slope because it's hard to say where politics and religion begin in a general photo discussion.

When we talk about money, we are referring to the economy, which is tied to politics...

When we talk about nature or beauty, we're referring to something greater than us, which starts to get into religion.

[Marko]

That's interesting. The harshest conflicts I've had on this forum were absolutely non-political and non-religious (unless digital vs. film counts as either or both) and fully photographic. Ditto for encountering some of the biggest jerks.

I wonder what are we going to blame next for such things, now that the Lounge has been sanitized?

[Vick Vickery]

I'm kinda indifferent to the whole thing...I just almost never open threads on politics or religion and I don't think I've ever posted to one.

[Navy Moose]

Thank you! Thank you! I like the idea of having "religious" discussions over black and white v. color far better. :-)

[Paul Kierstead]

Ah, well, I won't really miss the Pyro discussions anyway.

[Greg Lockrey]

Com'on.... Cheney put you up to this didn't he?

Thank God we can at least still talk about incestous underage beastiality and necrophilia with dwarves in bondage.

:eek: Not for long!:eek:

[gregstidham]

Lounge??? I've had it blocked for so long I forgot it existed. :)

For those that are new to the forum and find the discussions in the Lounge tiresome at best, you can exclude the Lounge from your forum view in the "My Settings/Edit options" menu. Simple to setup.

[davidb]

I too, think it is a wise decision for the forum.

Something that will certainly help it in the long run.

The lounge should still be about photography.

[domenico Foschi]

I am not sure I agree with the decision taken.

I have been following the lounge lately and aside of some people who are incapable of being respectful of others by means of personal attacks, I have benefited by the information provided in guise of links.
I do need to express my disgust regarding some unfortunate exchanges where any form on civility, respect for others and also self-respect had been completely forgotten, to be replaced by the most petty, childish and insulting behaviour.

I find it unfair for people who want to carry on a civil conversation and benefitting from the exchange of ideas to have this topics not allowed in the Lounge.
The problem should be dealt to their root cause: not allowing the few disruptive elements in the Lounge, if that's possible.
It is already been told that this site, being a private entity, is not a Democracy, however I believe that such an ideal is achieved in our society by incorporating it in any facet of our life, thus exercising our "democratic muscle", so to speak.
Democracy as a process is a messy one but its end is the most noble form of human coexistence.

Having said this I feel that the moderators have the right to do whatever they want with this website, and if this is their decision so be it.
This is still a great place for exchange of information.

[Ron Marshall]

I am in favour of permitting discussions on any topic. Some topics are more sensitive than others, but any topic can lead to impolite language etc.

If some people are abusing their privileges then they are the only ones who should be censored.

[Geary Lyons]

Although I respect the continuing efforts of the moderation team, this decision was not necessary. Bookburning by any other name is still bookburning. This action is sad and represents a rather unsophisticated response to a non-issue. Quite honestly, I think the decision, without any discussion with the general forum populace demonstrates a great amount of hubris on the moderation team's part.

The lounge was easily blocked by anyone. It's simple, just like any other medium, if the content offends you do not tune in. IMO, the decision shows heavy handed censorship as the default rather than exploring alternative methods to address the perceived issues. Personal attacks and failure to "play nice" are easily handled without such actions. They were addressed on other photo forums without overreaching censorship. Why not here?

Regards,
Geary

[PViapiano]

Agree with Geary and Domenico on this one...

Geary is right; it was a non-issue on this forum.

[Jim Graves]

"Our experiment with an unmoderated, any-topic-goes Lounge has largely failed."

I disagree. The Lounge was lively, irreverent, and basically harmless ... and, without a doubt, your busiest topic area. This reaction sounds like the "tut-tut" your great aunt used to say when scolding you.

[JW Dewdney]

YES agreed with several of the other threads... I think it is very curious and ODD that you choose NOW as a time to shut down a forums where a group who share an interest can discuss political topics...


... especially when things are running so smoothly and stably in america and the world...!!!

I think it is your responsibility ESPECIALLY NOW to keep the discussion flowing. WE ARE AT A VERY PRECARIOUS JUNCTURE IN HISTORY...!!! PLEASE PLEASE CONSIDER THIS.


Do you really want to be part of a minority who quashed voices that resulted in a positive direction for this and other countries...???

And especially since there's already the ability for persons to 'censor' boards and individuals from their own account???

Please respond.

[Greg Lockrey]

YES agreed with several of the other threads... I think it is very curious and ODD that you choose NOW as a time to shut down a forums where a group who share an interest can discuss political topics...


... especially when things are running so smoothly and stably in america and the world...!!!

I think it is your responsibility ESPECIALLY NOW to keep the discussion flowing. WE ARE AT A VERY PRECARIOUS JUNCTURE IN HISTORY...!!! PLEASE PLEASE CONSIDER THIS.


Do you really want to be part of a minority who quashed voices that resulted in a positive direction for this and other countries...???

And especially since there's already the ability for persons to 'censor' boards and individuals from their own account???

Please respond.

It's that the "New World Order" made them do it.

[Nick Wood]

Aristotle stated that politics is the ultimate form of moral development.

Wish that he was here to post on a thread!

[JW Dewdney]

no doubt he'd get kicked off...!

[poco]

I think this is a disappointing decision. Too many photography related topics have a political component and the fear of straying into that area will really have a "chilling effect" on the range of subjects people dare bring up. Photographers' rights, the evolving definition of what's considered pornography, the difficulty of air travel with gear, strategies for dealing with escalating transportation costs (gasoline).... these are the issues that have seen the most changes that affect us all, but that will be difficult to discuss from now on.

It's not like large format is a field dizzy enough with change to support a vibrant forum that ignores the wider world around it. How often can you talk about how to load film holders?

[Allen in Montreal]

.......we've concluded that it is in the best long-term interest of the forum to "outlaw" discussions of politics and religion,

--The Moderator Team

Dear Tom,

In the long term, I believe you have made a very wise decision.
Reb vs Dem, anti Bush debates etc. have destroyed another forum I once read daily.
The poisonous debates and deep animosity carried over into the main forum and it is now dying a slow death.

Thank you for taking this step, this forum is too good to go down the same path a die off dues to off topic discussions.

best regards,

Allen

[buze]

I agree with the closure of lounge. This is not a "free speech" forum, it is a privately held set of pages with someone paying for it to host LF discussions. If one is invited to someone place, you have to behave in a civilized and polite way and it's usualy frowned upon by the host if the guests start arguing and fighting... You won't get invited again.

I also have a photography forum, and the "off topic" area is to discuss stuff loosely related to photography, or the forum, or to regular members life. I have absolutely no interest in other peoples political, religious or sport views.

Oh and I ban permanently and without warning anyone making any sort of personal attack on anyone else. Some people believe that they can be rude from behind the keyboard, I invite them to go to another forum for that; it's not the job of volunteers to babysit for something that would have earned them a spank from mom, back then.

[Terence McDonagh]

Probably for the better.

Anyone know how to set up a yahoo discussion group or some other such thing? We could make it a member-only type of thing to keep out the non-photographer nutcases and restrict to us photography-based nutcases. I've actually learned quite a bit in the arguments and been exposed to interesting sources of info. I'd hate to lose those opportunities.

[Greg Lockrey]

Probably for the better.

Anyone know how to set up a yahoo discussion group or some other such thing? We could make it a member-only type of thing to keep out the non-photographer nutcases and restrict to us photography-based nutcases. I've actually learned quite a bit in the arguments and been exposed to interesting sources of info. I'd hate to lose those opportunities.

Yes, you just go to Yahoo groups and enter a name and set it up the way you want it. I had one many moons ago about watercolor portraits, I eventually dropped it and someone else owns it now. I too enjoyed the interaction with the LFPF nutcases. It helped to pass the long nights of watching printer heads from going back and forth...back and forth... :D :D :D

[lee\c]

Its your forum but I don't have to participate

lee\c

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I think I have an idea that will make everyone happy.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41064

[Don Hutton]

I think I have an idea that will make everyone happy.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41064
Sounds great David - why not go and start your own "forum" for whatever it is you wish to discuss somewhere else and pay for the bandwidth yourself?

This forum relies on "donated" resources in terms of bandwidth and equipment. The basis of that donation was for a photography forum focused on large format.

[BrianShaw]

Long live 35 mm.!
Is my signature off topic?


Sir... please keep this type of material confined to the Lounge. I do believe that it is inappropriate for the main forum. :D

[Terence McDonagh]

Okay, no idea how it all works, what the interface looks like when active, etc., but I set up a yahoo group called "large format politics" for lack of a better title. It is not listed in their directory, but is open to all, which I assume means that if you know the name of it, you should be able to join. I also set up a yahoo account called tmcdonut@yahoo.com.

No clue how it sets up threads, etc as I've never used yahoo groups before.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Okay, no idea how it all works, what the interface looks like when active, etc., but I set up a yahoo group called "large format politics" for lack of a better title. It is not listed in their directory, but is open to all, which I assume means that if you know the name of it, you should be able to join. I also set up a yahoo account called tmcdonut@yahoo.com.

No clue how it sets up threads, etc as I've never used yahoo groups before.

And that's precisely what "free speech" means on the internet. You're not free to say what you want on any forum, even if it seems like a public forum, but you are free to start your own forum, if you don't like the existing options that are available to you.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I generally agree with Domenico. Even though I had to sift through crap, I occasionally found interest and informative posts. Considering the heat of many of the topics discussed there, I was amazed at how controlled and courteous the arguments were (with a few exceptions). Humor often calmed us down, and there was a good display of passion. That similarity to photography was interesting, and the expression of those who are otherwise creative individuals (artists) is often refreshing today. I respect the moderators decision, although I never thought the situation over there was bad enough to require a policy change.

[Dave Aharonian]

I like the decision. I read this forum for its excellent photography discussion and information, not for politics. I know its a fine line and the original intent of the lounge made sense, but look at how many lounge threads there have been lately. Lets get back to what this forum is all about - LF!!

[SamReeves]

The Lounge is nothing more than an ideological warzone, and I deicded to block it as well. However it would be interesting to see if the air gets lighter in time.

[SaveBears]

Sounds great David - why not go and start your own "forum" for whatever it is you wish to discuss somewhere else and pay for the bandwidth yourself?

This forum relies on "donated" resources in terms of bandwidth and equipment. The basis of that donation was for a photography forum focused on large format.

I would agree Don, if he wants to talk about it, then he should pay for it..

[paulr]

It's too bad. For me the value of the lounge is that this place becomes a community, and it's natural to become interested in the ideas of others in your community, including ones that have nothing to do with photography.

It's also natural for some people to be completely uninterested anyting off topic. I don't see what's wrong with an unmoderated area. You're free to enter, and you're free to stay away.

Anyone who disagrees with this will be struck down immediately, where they stand, by the LORD!

[Pete Watkins]

I think that this is a really sad decision. For me, living where I do, I've always found it a facinating place to find the opinions of people in other countries (especially The U.S.A.). I might not agree with some of the opinions but I respect the rights of the posters to have them! The opinions posted are the opinions of intelligent people, morons don't do large format photography (in my experience they use camera phones and use U-Tube).The Lounge is not inflicted on those of us in the Large Format Community, we visit it by choice! So whats the problem?
Pete

[D. Bryant]

Our experiment with an unmoderated, any-topic-goes Lounge has largely failed. After a lot of discussion among the moderators, we've concluded that it is in the best long-term interest of the forum to "outlaw" discussions of politics and religion, either as thread starters or within posts/responses, anywhere on the forum, including the Lounge. The Lounge will remain for discussions on non-LF, but preferably photography-related, discussions and general socializing. Also, just to be clear, the same standards of behavior described in the guidelines will apply to The Lounge.

Depending on the nature of the post, members who violate the no-politics/religion rule anywhere on the forum will be warned, and the post/thread deleted. Repeated violations will result in suspension of that person's posting privileges, potentially on a permanent basis, at the discretion of the moderators.

Additionally, it appears that several members have registered multiple user IDs, at least in part to augment Lounge discussions or positions elsewhere on the forum. Multiple-ID registrations will not be tolerated and persons found to have done so, and continue to use them, will be permanently banned at the discretion of the moderators. If you have one or more secondary IDs not approved by the moderators in advance, let us know immediately so we can close the secondary accounts without penalty.

--The Moderator Team

Since it is easy enough to block the Lounge, which I do, I don't understand the reason for the moderation of that forum. People are free to participate or not to participate as they wish.

If an individual becomes egregiously abusive then just ban the SOB!

Just my 2 cents,

Don Bryant

[Vaughn]

I think it would have made better sense to have two Lounges...one for Political and Religious debates, and one for everything else.

I put the Lounge on ignore, which was great -- but did miss the opportunity to see what else was going on in there besides the P&R debates.

Vaughn

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I think the moderators made a difficult but wise choice.

There are many other forums and blogs that deal with politics and religion so if anyone really wants to follow these topics then there is no shortage of places to do so.

While I have not been on the Lounge in a very long time, what I notice is that at times, hurt feelings and bruised egos spill over onto other LF related posts. As members of this forum, we all are connected to what goes on in the Lounge, even if we don't post there.

I am happy the Lounge will stay and we can post items to it as long as the posts are not political or religous in nature. It will still be a place that we can express ideas and opinions and ,with the new restrictions, I might even begin checking it out once in a while.

Good call to the moderators and to QT.

[domenico Foschi]

I am concerned that by trying to make the job easier for the moderators,which I am pretty sure it is one of the goals of this decision, the decision itself might prove to achieve just the opposite.
Politics is so ingrained in our existence and spilling on many topics that it will require a substantial amount of attention from the moderators side in order to have the new regulations followed by the members of the forum.

When someone will be posting somethng about Photographer's Rights how will the moderators handle it when the discussion will inevitably turn toward some names of political figures involved in legislations etc.?

Moreover, Art throughout history has been one of the most critical voices of the establishment be it religious or political.
Is this forum exclusively for guy and gals with big cameras or also for Art?

[paulr]

I think it would have made better sense to have two Lounges...one for Political and Religious debates, and one for everything else.

Like ... a lounge and a back alley ;)

[willwilson]

It's too bad. For me the value of the lounge is that this place becomes a community, and it's natural to become interested in the ideas of others in your community, including ones that have nothing to do with photography.

It's also natural for some people to be completely uninterested anyting off topic. I don't see what's wrong with an unmoderated area. You're free to enter, and you're free to stay away.

Anyone who disagrees with this will be struck down immediately, where they stand, by the LORD!

I was going to post something in disagreement, but as I was typing clouds began to form in my office and it was evident that the Lord! was preparing to rain fire and brimstone down on me :eek: But I digress...

Pete Watkins hit on an important topic. You have to have a certain character to be interested in or actively participate in large format photography. This interest might be artistic, scientific or combination of both, but it is this commonality that made some of the discussions in the old lounge so interesting. I think the biggest misstep in the decision making process of the moderators on this was not to include a public discussion on the topic before a decisions was made. Obviously the opinions on the issue are quite varied, but in the end this is a decision to be made by those running this fantastic forum. I respect that decision. I would only ask that in the future we have a more open discussion on topics of this sort if possible.

[davidb]

No matter what we all think, this forum is owned by someone, who chooses to run this place in a certain way.

The Lounge area became a very ugly place.

Keep in mind this is a photography website, and the description of the lounge is now very clear....
"Area for off-topic (non-LF, but preferably photography-related) discussion and socializing"

So get over it. If it's bugging you that much, take it to photo.net or some place else.

[paulr]

So get over it. If it's bugging you that much, take it to photo.net or some place else.

LF Forum: Love it or Leave it?

I thought maybe the owners would be interested in how the peasants felt.

[davidb]

That's exactly what I am saying.

You're not paying to be here. Anyone can be a member.

And everyone is getting upset about something that has nothing to do with the purpose of this place.

[Greg Lockrey]

Okay, no idea how it all works, what the interface looks like when active, etc., but I set up a yahoo group called "large format politics" for lack of a better title. It is not listed in their directory, but is open to all, which I assume means that if you know the name of it, you should be able to join. I also set up a yahoo account called tmcdonut@yahoo.com.

No clue how it sets up threads, etc as I've never used yahoo groups before.

Can you post a link? I tried to search it, you're right it's not in the directory.

[Jim Galli]

Personally I could give a flying rip. Since it seems that to be a card carrying member of the "arts" also requires you to be liberal I'm outnumbered about a billion to one and have finally learned to keep my gob shut. One gets weary of being likened to Hitler and Satan. This is a great place to talk about LF cameras and even share your ideas about what makes a good photo.

[Don Hutton]

This is a great place to talk about LF cameras and even share your ideas about what makes a good photo.Amen.

[Michael Graves]

What if Jesus runs for president, on the platform that he'll bring back Kodachrome sheet film?

[Terence McDonagh]

Can you post a link? I tried to search it, you're right it's not in the directory.

Good question. When I log in it shows as one word, ie. largeformatpolitics, but when I search for that one, it doesn't turn up. Drop me a PM with your email and I'll "invite" you and see if you can't figure out how others can find it.

For the record, I'm probably one of the only engineers under 40 who hates computers . . .

[Darryl Baird]

gee, it's amazing what can happen in a short span of time...been off working for a few days and now my beloved scrappy zone is kaput... sheesh, just when I was getting to know some of the folks SOOOO much better

I fully agree with Domenico, there are some very vital 'cultural' ideas that have floated through the lounge, many which if developed might spur art or a greater understanding of the world... those flurries of links were wonderful and time-consuming, like trying to find a concrete example of artistic form and content married together by using Google or searching FLICKR... it ain't so easy.

I've been a photographer all my life and never tire of talking to fellow photographers about anything...I'm surrounded by other non-photo artists all day long and tire of them pretty quick ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sad to see it go. It probably would have returned to its usual pace after the election, so I think there will be a loss to those that participated with sincerity and respect. I generally never spent time there until the election heated up, so I guess I'll miss it more than some.

AND I really don't get the comments about how it made the forum look bad... really, to whom? Other photographers? It's like so many other areas of the culture... don't participate if it isn't your cup of tea, book, movie, religion, body-style, gender, etc. Why do we need to feel like our world is safe from tacky, crude or rude behavior?

(I'm Darryl Baird and I approve this message) LOL

[Michael Graves]

Good question. When I log in it shows as one word, ie. largeformatpolitics, but when I search for that one, it doesn't turn up. Drop me a PM with your email and I'll "invite" you and see if you can't figure out how others can find it.

For the record, I'm probably one of the only engineers under 40 who hates computers . . .

I write books about computers for a living.....and I hate computers.

[Terence McDonagh]

I write books about computers for a living.....and I hate computers.

Now THAT is funny. But if we loved everything about our jobs they wouldn't call it "work," they'd call it "fun," and our bosses would try to pay us less.

[Frank Petronio]

It's probably all for the best, considering how easy it is to Google us and find some rather extreme comments that could very well land us in jail under the coming McCain... err... Obama regime and subsequent police state. This is just prudent preparation.

[D. Bryant]

AND I really don't get the comments about how it made the forum look bad... really, to whom? Other photographers? It's like so many other areas of the culture... don't participate if it isn't your cup of tea, book, movie, religion, body-style, gender, etc. Why do we need to feel like our world is safe from tacky, crude or rude behavior?

I think I have the solution.

1) We all start our own blogs.
2) We write our outragous and insulting posts on our blog.
3) Post a link to our comments in a thread in the Lounge.
4) Interested persons would then post a response on their blog and post a link to their reply/rebuke in the same thread in the Lounge.
5) No moderation necessary.

It could work! :)

Don Bryant

[ASRafferty]

I am concerned that by trying to make the job easier for the moderators,which I am pretty sure it is one of the goals of this decision, the decision itself might prove to achieve just the opposite.


While I agree that this decision is likely to make the mods' job harder, I can say with confidence that there is absolutely NOTHING they could do to make the job easier! As a sometime sounding board for a former mod, I believe that a sincere (nay, ruthlessly conscientious!) attempt to be fair drives all their decisions. Just like America since its founding, the sincerity of the attempt isn't directly related to the likelihood of its succeeding. Diverse -- even opposite -- stakes in any issue guarantees there will be winners and losers the moment a decision is made. But everyone just keeps trying their best.

I think the individual ban is the correct tool to use in a situation like this, because that's what should happen to people who abuse freedom. But I'm glad to have the forum here at all, and that makes the decision QT's, because he's the one who can make it disappear if he wishes.

[weasel]

It seems a shame. I see lots of value in having an open forum, if nothing else than to remind us that we can be so very different, yet share a common interest in photography.If people were offended,they simply could ignore it.
I look at like this- I have little interest in digital stuff;I don't look at the digital forums very often because of that lack of interest. But, I do recognize that others find them of value, and therefore would not dream of wanting to see the banned.
I see the lounge the same way.

[Ash]

There was a contra-forum set up by members of a 35mm RF forum. They were unhappy with the ruthless and opposing rules on the main forum, the feeling it was turning into nothing but a money-spinner for the new owner.

These members left, set up a 'no holds barred, no rules, no moderation' forum. A free for all. It worked whilst the numbers were small and the clique was friendly. As soon as the forum became public it was abused and shortly collapsed upon itself.

Some rules are good, but not all rules are good rules. No rules is worse.

[Frank Petronio]

I just don't see how it is enforceable, consistent, or fair? -- or how it will make the moderator's job any easier. I suppose I could compare this situation to some of the dumb laws our government makes... oh but wait, maybe I shouldn't?

Granted it is private forum and the person paying for the bandwidth has supreme command, but I think this "cure" may well kill the patient. Or at least homogenize the patient so much that a lot of the more experienced contributors choose to move on. After all there are very few new large-format photographic questions and it is easy enough to just use Google when you need help figuring something out.

But anyway, back to the economic crisis... oh cripes, I can't mention that either!

[Jim Galli]

But anyway, back to the economic crisis... oh cripes, I can't mention that either!

Can't say cripes either. ;)

[Preston]

I agree with AS Rafferty's second point: "I think the individual ban is the correct tool to use in a situation like this, because that's what should happen to people who abuse freedom. But I'm glad to have the forum here at all, and that makes the decision QT's, because he's the one who can make it disappear if he wishes."

The Lounge should stay and be open to the topics that are banned under the new policy. Personally, I have learned some interesting facts that I may not have otherwise been exposed to. However, I do take exception with personal attacks and language that would be considered abusive by a reasonable and prudent person.

Moderation, both by those chosen to 'moderate' and by those posting, is the key.

Kind Regards,

-P

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I agree with AS Rafferty's second point: "I think the individual ban is the correct tool to use in a situation like this, because that's what should happen to people who abuse freedom. But I'm glad to have the forum here at all, and that makes the decision QT's, because he's the one who can make it disappear if he wishes."

The Lounge should stay and be open to the topics that are banned under the new policy. Personally, I have learned some interesting facts that I may not have otherwise been exposed to. However, I do take exception with personal attacks and language that would be considered abusive by a reasonable and prudent person.

Moderation, both by those chosen to 'moderate' and by those posting, is the key.

Kind Regards,

-P

It seems we have a 50-50 here. My idea, which would create a sperate area for people to discuss politics, etc. and only the people who asked to "subscribe" to that area, would see it. The rest of the board, wouldn't see it at all. This area would be moderated by someone new, someone who likes the idea of going in there. Frank is a good name and he's a Republican, so there will always be the option of an opposing viewpoint.

If bandwidth is a problem for the server this is hosted under, my server allows unlimited bandwidth and unlimited space and is up 99.9% of the time.

I do have plans to setup a new forum of my own one day, I have no idea when that is, though. I'm a believer that if you do something, you do it right and to setup a forum right now and rush into it without thinking would be a bad idea. It's much easier for everyone to stay on the same forum... I do not in any way wish to compete with this forum, I just think that there is an opportunity here for us to freely exchange ideas on politics, religion and large format photography.

[Merg Ross]

I wonder if this is more an issue of civility than one of subject. To divorce politics from photography is a noble concept, but I am not sure that it is possible.

While growing up in a photographer's household, I met some of the photographers familiar to and respected by members of this forum. This was during the Eisenhower/Nixon era (oops, sorry) and the adult conversation, once the Dagor/Artar controversy was resolved, turned to what was happening in Washington. My father and Imogen Cunningham, of two very different political persuasions, would banter for hours. I found it amusing and even educational. And then there was Ansel, who would rail against all Republican incumbents. It took very little to get him started.

I have made an attempt to see both sides of the change. As one who has not visited the Lounge for years, I can only assume that the change was necessary. My thanks to QT for making the forum possible and to all of the moderators for their dedication and good job.

[Francesco Gallarotti]

Very sad decision. I haven't participated actively in this "experiment" since I am a pretty new user, but I observed 2 things that I largely admired about the lounge and its members:
1) the fact that pretty much everyone took their politics, religion and in general non-photography related threads and posted them uniquely there.
I have found in general really hard in other forums to tell the users what to do. I have been an active mod for a while on a well know forum (Strobist) and found that there was no way to stop the number of off-topic threads to the point that they became the majority.
2) Even though I didn't agree with half of the posts in the lounge and didn't like the tone taken by certain conversations, I did find amazingly interesting sources of information over there that would be hard to find anywhere else. Somehow I think that advanced large-format users needed a place like that to hang-out after a long day and then, why not?, peek into the regular threads and help out some of us newbies.
Anyways I respect the decision of the forum administrators and look forward to seeing what the lounge will become. Thank you again to admins and mods for keeping this great community alive. It's a refreshing stop in my daily evening browsing.

[David A. Goldfarb]

This move will definitely make the moderators' jobs harder, but if they don't mind doing it, it might improve the forum. On APUG we went with a two-tiered off-topic system--The Lounge for general civilized off topic socializing and The Soapbox for mostly unmoderated brawling. I proposed this structure, because I thought it worked well on a trombone players' forum that I sometimes follow, and I'd seen various kinds of off topic forums in different contexts, including one pre-WWW internet forum that I still belong to (and which still runs in UNIX using line commands). The trombone forum was structured like a bar with a "Back Room" for off topic discussion and a "Back Alley" for guys who really needed to take it outside.

The Soapbox is only available to subscribers, so unregistered and non-supporting members don't see it, and we purge threads that have been inactive for two months so old disputes don't come back unless someone creates a new thread. In the Lounge we generally purge threads that have been inactive for six months (unless they seem interesting), so that Lounge threads don't come up in internet searches and draw people into the site who aren't really interested in photography (though we seem to get a few anyway).

Prior to these developments, we were doing a lot more active moderating of off topic and contentious discussion. Now we do a lot less. My experience on the other forums was that the unmoderated area would attract a lot of traffic at first, and then people would get bored with it and only post there occasionally, usually in a joking way, and that's kind of what's happened with the Soapbox on APUG. It doesn't get much traffic, and it keeps the contentious topics unrelated to photography out of the main forums, so that those who want to put them on ignore can do so.

That said, we do allow political discussions related to photography in the main forums--copyright issues, TSA rules, tripod police, harassment of photographers by people in uniform, people getting arrested for photographing their kids in the bath, Jock Sturges, government censorship, etc. I suspect those kinds of topics will still be allowed here, as long as they are civil and relate to LF photography.

[jnantz]

sounds like good move to me ...
good luck with the moderation!

john

[Don Hutton]

It would appear that a rule so unpopular with the obvious causes for the rule must be a perfect solution....

[domenico Foschi]

Sir... please keep this type of material confined to the Lounge. I do believe that it is inappropriate for the main forum. :D

http://i34.tinypic.com/14eb0o4.jpg

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

With respect to the forum moderators, I do not think they have been clear enough with us as to what is or is not acceptable in the Lounge.

The discussion of politics and religion are now off limits... this we knew.

However, now I have learned that you cannot discuss current events, even if they aren't political in nature nor you cannot curse and the Lounge is no longer un-moderated. This we did not know.

I thank Tuan for building such a fine forum that has made the discussion of photography so easy, and that I'm sure everyone has learned and grown from... however; I think the rules of this forum need to be made a little more clear... especially the Lounge.

My intent is not to challenge the moderators nor to be unfair to them, but if you cannot discuss things freely in the Lounge, why don't you just delete it?

[Greg Lockrey]

http://i34.tinypic.com/14eb0o4.jpg

Is that a pinhole lenscap, Domenico? Otherwise how did you take the picture? :D :D

[Greg Lockrey]

Free speech and P&R can be discussed here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/largeformatpolitics/messages

[Marko]

Is that a pinhole lenscap, Domenico? Otherwise how did you take the picture? :D :D

Looks like a... gasp!... Webcam... :D

[Don7x17]

http://i34.tinypic.com/14eb0o4.jpg

Maybe this is what he was actually thinking about? :) still needs to remove the lens cap...:D

http://s4.tinypic.com/ml6n9t.jpg

[kev curry]

With respect to the forum moderators...

The discussion of politics and religion are now off limits... this we knew...

I thank Tuan for building such a fine forum that has made the discussion of photography so easy, and that I'm sure everyone has learned and grown from.

My intent is not to challenge the moderators nor to be unfair to them!

Dave

May I remind you that just this very day you have violated the forum rules set forth by the moderators on no less that three counts causing actions being taken to delete your offending posts:o

Lets see:

First Violation- Reason: violates new rules.

Second Violation- Reason: violates new rules.

Third Violation- Reason: vulgarity.

And Vulgarity too! tut tut. Shame upon your good name and high standing in the photography world David.

David now please listen up...you could easily find yourself Banned from this very forum and very soon if you don't consider navigating a new course of conduct!

Just a thought old chap:)

[Kirk Keyes]

THat's great, Don!

Kirk

[Brian Ellis]

Although I respect the continuing efforts of the moderation team, this decision was not necessary. Bookburning by any other name is still bookburning. This action is sad and represents a rather unsophisticated response to a non-issue. Quite honestly, I think the decision, without any discussion with the general forum populace demonstrates a great amount of hubris on the moderation team's part.

The lounge was easily blocked by anyone. It's simple, just like any other medium, if the content offends you do not tune in. IMO, the decision shows heavy handed censorship as the default rather than exploring alternative methods to address the perceived issues. Personal attacks and failure to "play nice" are easily handled without such actions. They were addressed on other photo forums without overreaching censorship. Why not here?

Regards,
Geary

A magazine is judged by its content. Time magazine doesn't carry pornography. The NY Times doesn't carry the same stories as the National Inquirer (even though nobody would have to read those stories if they were printed). That isn't "censorship" or "book burning." Privately owned and operated publications have the right to formulate their own editorial policies and to decide what they will print and what they won't. Similarly, this forum is judged by its content and the Lounge as previously constituted demeaned the entire forum in my opinion and the opinion of others. Deleting certain types of discussions isn't "censorship," it reflects an editorial decision by the people who run the forum as to what content is appropriate for the forum and what isn't. The fact that nobody was obligated to read the Lounge is irrelevant.

[Roger Thoms]

Good to here the lounge is being discontinued.
Roger

[jim kitchen]

I thought I blocked the lounge...

Did someone leave the lounge door open?

jim k

[Geary Lyons]

A magazine is judged by its content. Time magazine doesn't carry pornography. The NY Times doesn't carry the same stories as the National Inquirer (even though nobody would have to read those stories if they were printed). That isn't "censorship" or "book burning." Privately owned and operated publications have the right to formulate their own editorial policies and to decide what they will print and what they won't. Similarly, this forum is judged by its content and the Lounge demeaned the entire forum in my opinion and the opinion of others. Deleting it isn't "censorship," it reflects an editorial decision by the people who run the forum as to what content is appropriate for the forum and what isn't. The fact that nobody was obligated to read the Lounge is irrelevant.

Sorry, a forum is not a magazine. A forum is not a publication. There is no editorial content, therefore no editorial policy. A forum is, just as the Latin root might suggest, a gathering place to share information, news and express opinions. The modern cyber forum is clearly defined as an online message board where information can be shared and discussions can be carried out and read.

Interesting thought process that the forum, a cyber entity is judged? By whom? Why? Who cares? Did you conduct a poll? Ask the judges?..."I give it a 3, nice beat, but hard to dance to!"

If you are happy with the decision, that is your prerogative. But please do not try to justify the recent decision with a specious, non sequitur argument.

I fully understand that there is a forum owner and he has appointed moderators. A decision has made made. I am mostly disappointed with the process, the apparent unwillingness and failure to address the core issue, unacceptable behavior by a small minority. I feel that taking corrective action on the few miscreants was a far more just action. IMO, it is far better to punish the guilty than to deprive the community its open forum.

Geary

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Sorry, a forum is not a magazine. A forum is not a publication. There is no editorial content, therefore no editorial policy. A forum is, just as the Latin root might suggest, a gathering place to share information, news and express opinions. The modern cyber forum is clearly defined as an online message board where information can be shared and discussions can be carried out and read.

Interesting thought process that the forum, a cyber entity is judged? By whom? Why? Who cares? Did you conduct a poll? Ask the judges?..."I give it a 3, nice beat, but hard to dance to!"

If you are happy with the decision, that is your prerogative. But please do not try to justify the recent decision with a specious, non sequitur argument.

I fully understand that there is a forum owner and he has appointed moderators. A decision has made made. I am mostly disappointed with the process, the apparent unwillingness and failure to address the core issue, unacceptable behavior by a small minority. I feel that taking corrective action on the few miscreants was a far more just action. IMO, it is far better to punish the guilty than to deprive the community its open forum.

Geary

Completely agree.

[Marko]

Completely agree.

Lupus in fabula!

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry, a forum is not a magazine. A forum is not a publication. There is no editorial content, therefore no editorial policy. A forum is, just as the Latin root might suggest, a gathering place to share information, news and express opinions. The modern cyber forum is clearly defined as an online message board where information can be shared and discussions can be carried out and read.

Interesting thought process that the forum, a cyber entity is judged? By whom? Why? Who cares? Did you conduct a poll? Ask the judges?..."I give it a 3, nice beat, but hard to dance to!"

If you are happy with the decision, that is your prerogative. But please do not try to justify the recent decision with a specious, non sequitur argument.

I fully understand that there is a forum owner and he has appointed moderators. A decision has made made. I am mostly disappointed with the process, the apparent unwillingness and failure to address the core issue, unacceptable behavior by a small minority. I feel that taking corrective action on the few miscreants was a far more just action. IMO, it is far better to punish the guilty than to deprive the community its open forum.

Geary

I didn't say the forum was a magazine or a publication. I was drawing an analogy (note use of the word "similarly") to a magazine or a publication to the extent that this forum, like a magazine or other publication, is judged by its content. Who is it judged by? Its participants and any other persons who read it.

If you read the responses here I think you'll see that "the community" doesn't feel deprived of anything. You and some others who for some reason think a large format photography forum should serve as a vehicle for political and religious discussions feel deprived. There is no reason you should. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of forums, blogs, and other vehicles that exist for the purpose of discussing politics and religion. This isn't one of them.

[domenico Foschi]

Then it doesn't make much sense to offer a Lounge where you can have off topic discussions aside of politic and religion.
Either you have a Lounge or you haven't.


I didn't say the forum was a magazine or a publication. I was drawing an analogy (note use of the word "similarly") to a magazine or a publication to the extent that this forum, like a magazine or other publication, is judged by its content. Who is it judged by? Its participants and any other persons who read it.

If you read the responses here I think you'll see that "the community" doesn't feel deprived of anything. You and some others who for some reason think a large format photography forum should serve as a vehicle for political and religious discussions feel deprived. There is no reason you should. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of forums, blogs, and other vehicles that exist for the purpose of discussing politics and religion. This isn't one of them.

[Frank Petronio]

Right, the problem is that the rules now are vague and arbitrary.

Simply banning the IPs of the worst offenders and double identities would be far more practical.

I don't see the moderator's job getting any easier... in fact this will make it worse.

While depriving the fair and civil players of an interesting -- and very popular -- outlet.

Sounds like our government at work, not clear-headed photographers... lol

[Geary Lyons]

I didn't say the forum was a magazine or a publication. I was drawing an analogy (note use of the word "similarly") to a magazine or a publication to the extent that this forum, like a magazine or other publication, is judged by its content. Who is it judged by? Its participants and any other persons who read it.

If you read the responses here I think you'll see that "the community" doesn't feel deprived of anything. You and some others who for some reason think a large format photography forum should serve as a vehicle for political and religious discussions feel deprived. There is no reason you should. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of forums, blogs, and other vehicles that exist for the purpose of discussing politics and religion. This isn't one of them.

Thank you for explaining. Perhaps an analogy, just, IMO, a poor one. If there is any similarity, IMO, it is dubious, at best.

I have read the responses. I was able to recognize and comprehend the arguments, both pro and con. The broad brush assumptions, that you appear to make, are not very factual. It may be the way you perceive the responses as you represent, but I did read the responses and drew a different inference. I wasn't the only voice disappointed by the decision and/or the lack of implementing already available actions to stem the issues.

Yes, it is censorship. Yes, it is a modern equivalent to bookburning. When someone says because "I do not want to hear" and/or "I will not read", therefore no one else should either, I am offended. I DO feel deprived. It is not right. It goes against my core values. IMO, such action diminishes the value of this community.

Yes, there are a multitude of other political and religious sites on the web. So what? I am not a member of any of those communities. I have no common bond to those memberships. I value the intercourse in this forum, whether or not I always agree, because of the common bonds. This is a community, for most of us, based on the pursuit of art. Art has always been undeniably intertwined with the religious and political milieu.

It is, to me, sad, that some feel that because they don't like or appreciate something, they are justified in denying same to others. It is a small minded approach to a universe expansive beyond our imagining.

Regards,
Geary

[Juergen Sattler]

Geary, just take your desire to discuss politics and religion somewhere else if you feel that strongly. I have zero sympathy for your arguments because they are not valid. May I remind you what the purpose of this forum is - LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY and NOT politics/religion or anything else. On top of that it is a private forum owned by one heck of a generous person who does not even take a dime from us to support this site. And you compare it to censorship and book burning - total BS. There are thousands of other sites out there where you can discuss almost anything all day long - go and find them.

I agree 100% wih Brian Ellis and his analogy.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Geary, just take your desire to discuss politics and religion somewhere else if you feel that strongly. I have zero sympathy for your arguments because they are not valid. May I remind you what the purpose of this forum is - LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY and NOT politics/religion or anything else. On top of that it is a private forum owned by one heck of a generous person who does not even take a dime from us to support this site. And you compare it to censorship and book burning - total BS. There are thousands of other sites out there where you can discuss almost anything all day long - go and find them.

I agree 100% wih Brian Ellis and his analogy.

The forum has areas that are not devoted to large format photography, specifically; annocements, business, digital hardware, digital processing, location & travel, on photography. That's 6 out of 13 sub-forums that are not dedicated to large format photography and out of the remaining 7, there are multiple conversations that don't have anything to do with large format photography. Your suggestion to do away with any and all conversations having nothing to do with large format photography would remove over 70% of the discussions currently taking place on this forum.

This forum is really a forum about photography and anything having to do with photography with a special emphasis on large format. There are multiple issues in the world today that effect photographers, including religion and politics. Should the admins here ban discussions of photographers whose work relates to religion or politics?

[Geary Lyons]

Geary, just take your desire to discuss politics and religion somewhere else if you feel that strongly. I have zero sympathy for your arguments because they are not valid. May I remind you what the purpose of this forum is - LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY and NOT politics/religion or anything else. On top of that it is a private forum owned by one heck of a generous person who does not even take a dime from us to support this site. And you compare it to censorship and book burning - total BS. There are thousands of other sites out there where you can discuss almost anything all day long - go and find them.

I agree 100% wih Brian Ellis and his analogy.

Thank you Juergen. You post is epitome of my concern. The post demonstrates the exact thinking that I find so repugnant. "Love it or leave it"! What a concept. How unique a philosophy, in this day and age.

I appreciate your validation!
Cheers,
Geary

[Brian_A]

People deal with it. This system is not a democracy. If you aren't a moderator, you don't get a vote. Get over it. I do believe the domain name to this place is LARGEFORMATPHOTOGRAPHY.INFO not Largeformatphotographyandreligionandpolitics.INFO.

Deal with it. It is what it is. Start your own LF forum with the ability to post stuff about other topics if that's the type of system you want. Either enjoy what is provided to you for absolutely no cost or go away.

-Brian

[Don Hutton]

The forum has areas that are not devoted to large format photography, specifically; annocements, business, digital hardware, digital processing, location & travel, on photography. That's 6 out of 13 sub-forums that are not dedicated to large format photography and out of the remaining 7, there are multiple conversations that don't have anything to do with large format photography. Your suggestion to do away with any and all conversations having nothing to do with large format photography would remove over 70% of the discussions currently taking place on this forum.
That really does show your complete ignorance of what this forum is about - all those subforums are how they relate to large format photography. None of them about those topics in isolation. For example, the digital hardware forum is not for discussion of 35mm scanners. It is, however, for discussion of scanners for large format film.

[Brian_A]

Don't bother Don, some people just need to see things their own distorted way to somehow prove a point. People of a reasonably rational mind, like you and I, realize that what he has to say in this respect is completely irrational.


That really does show your complete ignorance of what this forum is about - all those subforums are how they relate to large format photography. None of them about those topics in isolation. For example, the digital hardware forum is not for discussion of 35mm scanners. It is, however, for discussion of scanners for large format film.

[davidb]

I just checked...

www.spivaksworldofphotographyandfreespeech.com is available.

[Kirk Gittings]

Don, Brian, you are exactly right. All the sub forums are for LF related topics. For example a discussion about computer hardware is relevant, because it is a tool we need to process scanned files even though LF may never be mentioned, but a topic about scanning 35 mm film specifically or processing DSLR files in ACR belongs in the lounge. Topics about book design or matting prints are relevant even though LF may not be mentioned etc. Aesthetic topics are generally universal and applicable to LF even though LF may not even be mentioned in the post, but a discussion about a specific 35mm photographer and his technique should end up in the lounge unless it is made relevant to LF by something like "how can I get the Lee Friedlander 35mm look in my LF photography?". This is not a commercial forum selling ads that needs allot of traffic to justify ad rates. That gives us the freedom to to be a very specific resource for a unique group of photographers.

[domenico Foschi]

If we follow the logic of the moderators other topics to be banned should be digital vs silver, anything related to pyro, and all other issues where we witnessed the darkest recesses of the mind of some members come through.
But this hardly would be a fruitful decision, because we are not acting on the root of the cause, which is the person who acts out the beahviour but merely on the symptom, so to speak.
The reason I insists on this is exactly the same Geary explained: I feel offended and deprived of very valuable information, offered mainly by Donald Miller that I wouldn't have the time and the will to research.

[domenico Foschi]

About those Rodinals, eh!?

[Jim Graves]

Yup ... but now that it's gone, I'll miss the real Lounge ... the "usual suspects" kicking around the topic of the day ... usually informative ... always opinionated ... and the one place on the forum that often made me laugh out loud at some of the incredibly witty responses.

[Geary Lyons]

People deal with it. This system is not a democracy. If you aren't a moderator, you don't get a vote. Get over it. I do believe the domain name to this place is LARGEFORMATPHOTOGRAPHY.INFO not Largeformatphotographyandreligionandpolitics.INFO.

Deal with it. It is what it is. Start your own LF forum with the ability to post stuff about other topics if that's the type of system you want. Either enjoy what is provided to you for absolutely no cost or go away.

-Brian

The Lounge was for other topics. All of this discussion actually should relate to the Lounge and the various incarnations of acceptable postings. But, no! The rantings of the intolerant seem to want to ignore that fact. The intolerant, rather than focus on the issue, obfuscate the dialog with overly broad generalizations, then promptly segue to "Agree with me or leave".

I'll reiterate my original point. My issue was that there were already established moderator actions to remove the perpetrators of unacceptable behavior from the lounge. I simply wished that that had been exercised, rather than to rend perfectly legitimate discussion within the Lounge.

As usual, YMMV,
Cheers,
Geary

[jb7]

The rantings of the intolerant...


I never visited the lounge much,
but that certainly does describe some of the more memorable moments...

joseph

[davidb]

well said Kirk.

[pkphotog]

I didn't know much about American politics until I visited the Lounge several weeks ago.
I found it informative and I learned a great deal by following the links provided.
I live in Canada and have never followed previous U.S. elections, but now I find myself reading about it daily. It's too bad it had to be censored. I will miss it.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

That really does show your complete ignorance of what this forum is about - all those subforums are how they relate to large format photography. None of them about those topics in isolation. For example, the digital hardware forum is not for discussion of 35mm scanners. It is, however, for discussion of scanners for large format film.

Don, watch how you speak to me. You were one of the primary reasons the Lounge was changed because of your unacceptable personal attacks on me.

[ASRafferty]

Don, watch how you speak to me. You were one of the primary reasons the Lounge was changed because of your unacceptable personal attacks on me.

Kirk, Tom, Tuan, Ralph, Neil... could you please respond to this? It implies that Mr. Spivack has access to specific reasons you have made the recent change, beyond what you've announced publicly. Is he in any way authorized to represent the Mods, or even privy to your deliberations? That would be such a dramatic departure from past practice that I, for one, would want to know it before I communicated with the Mods for any reason. Thank you.

[BrianShaw]

Oy veh.

Boys... either start playing nicely together or you will have to go sit in a corner for 15 minutes.

I thought that line was only useful on my children! ;)

[Don Hutton]

Don, watch how you speak to me.Why should I "watch how I speak to you"? Is that a pathetic veiled threat of some sort? My point was that you are clearly ignorant if you think that any of the subforums are not about large format photography and Kirk, one of the moderators, actually confirmed that a few posts later. Sorry that there's not a "nicer" way to put it David...

If you don't like this forum being about large format photograhy, just go elsewhere. Nobody is forcing you to be here....

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Kirk, Tom, Tuan, Ralph, Neil... could you please respond to this? It implies that Mr. Spivack has access to specific reasons you have made the recent change, beyond what you've announced publicly. Is he in any way authorized to represent the Mods, or even privy to your deliberations? That would be such a dramatic departure from past practice that I, for one, would want to know it before I communicated with the Mods for any reason. Thank you.

Look at Don's past posts in the Lounge. Posts containing information about discussions I had with my subscribers, posts saying "go masturbate somewhere else", posts using foul language to attack me... seriously, if he was banned from the lounge, it would still be there today. He is the one that ruined it for everyone. No, I'm not perfect and I regret saying things that I did sometimes, but I never went after someone the way this guy went after me.

[ASRafferty]

Look at Don's past posts in the Lounge. Posts containing information about discussions I had with my subscribers, posts saying "go masturbate somewhere else", posts using foul language to attack me... seriously, if he was banned from the lounge, it would still be there today. He is the one that ruined it for everyone. No, I'm not perfect and I regret saying things that I did sometimes, but I never went after someone the way this guy went after me.

I don't care about any of that. What I care about is whether you are actually reporting what the moderators discussed in making this decision. You imply that you know things the rest of us don't and have some sort of leverage from which to threaten Don. If you've acquired some status with the moderating team, I want to know it, and everyone is entitled to.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I don't care about any of that. What I care about is whether you are actually reporting what the moderators discussed in making this decision. You imply that you know things the rest of us don't and have some sort of leverage from which to threaten Don. If you've acquired some status with the moderating team, I want to know it, and everyone is entitled to.

Before Don Hutton, David Pyke, SaveBears and KevKurry made their way into the Lounge, I was having normal discussions with dozens of people and there were no problems in the lounge. If someone felt what I was saying was over the line, I've been PM'd by them stating so and apologized, but I never went after ANYONE. I did not imply I was a moderator, but I did warn everyone to stop their personal attacks on me or they'd risk losing the Lounge. I warned everyone because of a very brief discussion I had with a moderator who implied such. That moderator told me that they were not happy at all with what was going on and were looking at some changes. To me, that was enough to warn everyone to stop their personal attacks. They didn't and look what happened. Dozens of people lost out because of the actions of a few.

[ASRafferty]

I did not imply I was a moderator, but I did warn everyone to stop their personal attacks on me or they'd risk losing the Lounge. I warned everyone because of a very brief discussion I had with a moderator who implied such. That moderator told me that they were not happy at all with what was going on and were looking at some changes. To me, that was enough to warn everyone to stop their personal attacks. They didn't and look what happened.

I see. Well, all due respect, but I think I'll wait to see if any of the actual moderators can clarify the extent to which you're entitled to issue warnings on their behalf. Lots of us communicate with them for lots of reasons, and I would want to know exactly where what I say to them goes, before I say it.

[QT Luong]

Don, watch how you speak to me. You were one of the primary reasons the Lounge was changed because of your unacceptable personal attacks on me.

Not as far as I am aware. Don Hutton's statement on the forum mission and how the forum topics relate to large format photography is basically correct. The forum was never intended for people with little knowledge or interest in large format photography to come and discuss politics and current events.

[David Pyke]

Before Don Hutton, David Pyke, SaveBears and KevKurry made their way into the Lounge, I was having normal discussions with dozens of people and there were no problems in the lounge.

Yep, discussions about how people don't get their subscriptions and how you lose photographer's portfolios.

Ahhh, the good old days!

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW, David is referring to a rather general statement I made to him a few weeks ago. I said simply that "We are not happy about allot of what is going on and are looking at some changes. That is all I can say right now." Any belief that this had to do with the actions of specific people are entirely assumptions on David's part and do not come from any statement that I made or implied.

[ASRafferty]

FWIW, David is referring to a rather general statement I made to him a few weeks ago. I said simply that "We are not happy about allot of what is going on and are looking at some changes. That is all I can say right now." Any belief that this had to do with the actions of specific people are entirely assumptions on David's part and do not come from any statement that I made or implied.

Thank you, Kirk... trust in the moderators' judgment is crucially important, and it's good to be able to tell the difference between the "truly anointed" and the "self-anointed"!

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Yep, discussions about how people don't get their subscriptions and how you lose photographer's portfolios.

Ahhh, the good old days!

You see, this is what I'm talking about. How do you moderators ban intelligent discussion, but allow this drivel?

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

I'm looking for some waterfall pics. I don't know what you're all arguing about.

[Marko]

If we follow the logic of the moderators other topics to be banned should be digital vs silver, anything related to pyro, and all other issues where we witnessed the darkest recesses of the mind of some members come through.
But this hardly would be a fruitful decision, because we are not acting on the root of the cause, which is the person who acts out the beahviour but merely on the symptom, so to speak.
The reason I insists on this is exactly the same Geary explained: I feel offended and deprived of very valuable information, offered mainly by Donald Miller that I wouldn't have the time and the will to research.

If we follow that logic, no topic is safe because this is not an action to eliminate offending behaviour but simply a reaction that tries to deny the ground for it.

One need not look beyond this thread to realize that banning The Lounge solved precisely nothing. Judging by the semi-lynching atmosphere already building up, I have a distinct feeling that next will come an attempt to ban offensive behaviour by banning certain people and I'm afraid that that will be those who attract such behaviour rather than those who commit it.

I very rarely agree with David Spivack on just about anything, and mostly with reason, but this is one of such moments. As far as I am concerned, this is going to be a test case of protecting interests of all by protecting the least popular and liked among us.

[David Pyke]

You see, this is what I'm talking about. How do you moderators ban intelligent discussion, but allow this drivel?

Are either of my statements untrue? Have not people complained about receiving issues? Did you not lose a photographer's portfolio?

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

If we follow that logic, no topic is safe because this is not an action to eliminate offending behaviour but simply a reaction that tries to deny the ground for it.

One need not look beyond this thread to realize that banning The Lounge solved precisely nothing. Judging by the semi-lynching atmosphere already building up, I have a distinct feeling that next will come an attempt to ban offensive behaviour by banning certain people and I'm afraid that that will be those who attract such behaviour rather than those who commit it.

I very rarely agree with David Spivack on just about anything, and mostly with reason, but this is one of such moments. As far as I am concerned, this is going to be a test case of protecting interests of all by protecting the least popular and liked among us.

Flaming is going to go on everywhere, but if I'm going to be, as Kev pointed out, reprimanded for breaching new rules, then the rules should go beyond no politics or religion and include no personal attacks. That should've been a rule day 1 of this forum. The people I mentioned should've been banned from this forum a long time ago. They are the trouble people on here. If they had been banned, right now Donald Miller would be discussing how socialism is going to save the world and I would be arguing how conservativism is going to save it. The Lounge would still be there and we wouldn't have a problem.

I'll point out a very specific example. Deane Johnson was offended by comments I made that he felt were sexist. They were not intended to be at all and I apologized to him. The people who I mentioned have not once apologized to anyone for their offensive comments, nor do they ever even curb their discussions to be less offensive. How is intelligent discussion banned, or even the use of "vulgarity" banned, but not personal attacks?

[Jim Graves]

Ah ... and this appears to be political and religious ... and in the Lounge no less .... moderators?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41134

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Are either of my statements untrue? Have not people complained about receiving issues? Did you not lose a photographer's portfolio?

Each of your questions are irrelevant and are meant as personal attacks on me. Name one magazine that has a perfect track record of subscriptions... I was open and honest with everyone about the problem I had and participated in ongoing discussions until the problem was solved, which it has been. You aren't even a subscriber, so the only reason you would ever have to bring up that discussion is to attack me. Part of the problem of being part of the community with photographers is that if they have a problem, they can make it public. If they have a problem with ViewCamera, they can make it public. If they have a problem with LensWork, they can make it public. They have a problem with Time Magazine, they call Time Magazine's subscription department.

As far as losing a photographer's portfolio, yes, I lost in between moves two and a half years ago. That problem has been resolved between that photographer and myself. Was that your portfolio, David? Are you concerned about Michael Gordon's well being for the loss of a portfolio of prints? Is Michael Gordon any less successful because of the loss of his prints? Anyone check out his website lately? It's gorgeous. His photography is gorgeous. I've always said so. See it for yourself. http://www.michael-gordon.com/index.php
Obviously, he's doing fine. He's moved on. I've moved on. Sh*t happens. People make mistakes. Your attempt to bring it up is just another method of a personal attack. And I don't even know you... I don't know who you are, I've never done anything to you and you just randomly come on here and attack me? What kind of person does that? Seriously.

[SaveBears]

David,

In the last few weeks, your language has really taken a colorful turn, in fact so much so, you had a message deleted today by one of the moderation team and the specific reason..."Vulgarity" If you want to have a free for all, then start it up and go for it, the moderation team as well as the owners of this website have changed the rules, if you don't like it, go away, start your own system and manage it, but stop your bullshit, this the way it should be...find some where else to play your games..

As far as personal attacks, you are a master of that, you did it over on APUG and then you moved here and continued to do it, and then you get pissed because someone gets tired of you BS and attacks back...

Really, until such time as you own the system, or another system, you have no say in how it is run, why it ran a certain way, etc...

It is unfortunate, it seems many like your magazine, but not many like you!

IF PEOPLE DON"T LIKE IT, then go somewhere else..

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

David,

In the last few weeks, your language has really taken a colorful turn, in fact so much so, you had a message deleted today by one of the moderation team and the specific reason..."Vulgarity" If you want to have a free for all, then start it up and go for it, the moderation team as well as the owners of this website have changed the rules, if you don't like it, go away, start your own system and manage it, but stop your bullshit, this the way it should be...find some where else to play your games..

As far as personal attacks, you are a master of that, you did it over on APUG and then you moved here and continued to do it, and then you get pissed because someone gets tired of you BS and attacks back...

Really, until such time as you own the system, or another system, you have no say in how it is run, why it ran a certain way, etc...

It is unfortunate, it seems many like your magazine, but not many like you!

IF PEOPLE DON"T LIKE IT, then go somewhere else..

Show me my personal attacks, SaveBears. Come on show them to me when they're not in response to an attack on me. Show me one instance where I initiated a personal attack on someone out of the blue. Show me. You can't, because I never have. APUG was years ago... jesus, why do people hang onto crap that happened 4 years ago? You attack me today because I was a dick 4 years ago? It's too bad the threads there are deleted, because as I recall, because the magazine had digital in it, people were really nasty to me. A lot of people on here are victims of APUG.

My post deleted for vulgarity because you can't curse in the lounge anymore.

[SaveBears]

Show me my personal attacks, SaveBears. Come on show them to me when they're not in response to an attack on me. Show me one instance where I initiated a personal attack on someone out of the blue. Show me. You can't, because I never have. APUG was years ago... jesus, why do people hang onto crap that happened 4 years ago?

My post deleted for vulgarity because you can't curse in the lounge anymore.

David,

I think, before most of the threads were locked and messages deleted, there was quite an example of your personal attacks on others as well as you vulgar mouth...

People hang on to crap(as you call it) because it shows a pattern...and your pattern has been quite controversial over the years...

All I can say, if you don't like the new rules, then set up a system yourself and have at it, cause then you can make the rules..

Again, if you don't like it, then lump it, or leave, and even though, I came on the scene and called you on your BS, I am more than happy to live with the new rules, and it seems like many others are more than willing to as well..

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

David,

I think, before most of the threads were locked and messages deleted, there was quite an example of your personal attacks on others as well as you vulgar mouth...

People hang on to crap(as you call it) because it shows a pattern...and your pattern has been quite controversial over the years...

All I can say, if you don't like the new rules, then set up a system yourself and have at it, cause then you can make the rules..

Again, if you don't like it, then lump it, or leave, and even though, I came on the scene and called you on your BS, I am more than happy to live with the new rules, and it seems like many others are more than willing to as well..

The threads on here aren't deleted. You can view every single one of them. I'm still waiting for you to show me an example of me starting a personal attack on anyone.

And it's amazing how I'm not the only one who feels the Lounge should embrace politics again, yet I'm the only one who you're telling to like it or leave. This back and forth discussion just proves to me that if the users I mentioned were banned, like Jorge was, the place would look a lot cleaner.

[BrianShaw]

This back and forth discussion just proves ...

You can stop it. Think hard and you'll figure out how.

[Frank Petronio]

You guys are idiots, here you are trying to justify an open lounge and then you go off pissing on each other... LOL after watching this thread devolve I retract my earlier statements. Kill the lounge and ban anyone you don't like. It's all stupid drivel anyway.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

You guys are idiots, here you are trying to justify an open lounge and then you go off pissing on each other... LOL after watching this thread devolve I retract my earlier statements. Kill the lounge and ban anyone you don't like. It's all stupid drivel anyway.

This thread would not have devolved if I were not, once again, personally attacked. This is why the Lounge turned to sh*t. I'm ill concerned if a few people do not like me, but they take it out in the open and turn threads into crap. It's what Jorge did. And now he's gone. The same should've happened to the others.

I've never fought with you Frank, nor Donald, nor pretty much anyone in the Lounge except the names I mentioned. The Lounge was a perfectly fine place to be before they showed up.

[Frank Petronio]

Dave you've always been civil and articulate and pretty much a gentleman but.... when you're around a stinky place it is often wiser to just get away. Arguing in circles is silly unless you're getting something out of it. How much fun were you having arguing with those names you mentioned?

[adrian tyler]

behavior like this diplays an astonishing lack of understanding of basic personal physcology or should we call that maturity, if my four year old behaved in the same defensive / aggressive maner as do the aforementioned i would consider that i had failed my job as a parent.

end if she hit me with "they started it" as a full grown adult, well that would just beggar belief.

homage to the lounge, politics for the masses:

[kev curry]

David,(FocusMag)

Anyone reading through this thread with no prior knowledge of recent forum/s histories could be forgiven for assuming that you were the unfortunate and unjustified victim of some unruly mob hell bent on seeing you lynched for no apparent reason.

In truth - IMHO - you are only a victim insofar, of your own long, well documented, and I'm sorry to say David, terribly disreputable record both personally and professionally.

I feel that its very unprincipled of you in attempting to create this 'photoshopped' picture, both of your own conduct and your ongoing claim to moral ground regarding the Lounge.

[domenico Foschi]

Frank is right.
To be nasty with a person just because he is being disrespectful with yourself shows lack of character and a personality that needs work.
I am not referring to David specifically but to anybody who reacts to someone's attacks with the same virulence and malignancy.
Whoever wants to understand it is welcome to do so.

[Patrik Roseen]

The issue of personal attacks seems to be more sensitive to those being in the profession of this forum. For most of us (amateurs) it is easy to ignore and just go on,but I think many of us would feel a lot different if we were challenged professionally, and especially if we had to defend the reputation of one's own company or professional knowledge. Think about it...

I belong to the large group of people on this forum who witness the insults but who decide not to get too much involved, choose side, or try to stop any 'fighting'...sometimes because we do not wish to draw the attention on to oneself or that we do not see who is to blame. Those who try to break up a fight sometimes use the wrong wordings actually adding to the insults. I do not think anyone wants to hear that their behaviour is this or that...it just adds to the frustration.

I was thinking about bringing up a recent example where I and probably many with me could have made our voices heard to stop the fighting/insults, but where many of us chose not to. However, knowing that this would only start a new discussion of 'this was wrong and that was right' I will not do so.

The question is if it is possible to learn something from the past and move on to make this an even better forum. I think respect for the other individual is essential in any community.

BTW, FocusMag, I have seen the fighting,I have recognised the attacks, I am not a subscriber...I just want you to know that the pdf file from your paper you once linked to is a great inspiration to me. I do appreciate your effort producing this product!

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

BTW, FocusMag, I have seen the fighting,I have recognised the attacks, I am not a subscriber...I just want you to know that the pdf file from your paper you once linked to is a great inspiration to me. I do appreciate your effort producing this product!

People say they don't like me but they love my product. My product IS me. It is my soul completely stripped of any protection and complete vulnerability. I'm sure many of you, with your photography feel the same. Your photography is a reflection of who you are... it is YOUR soul. If your photography is not a reflection of who you are, if your photography is not your passion, your life, your essence, whether you make money from it or not, then you should put down your camera and be an accountant.

I will be the first person to admit I am completely imperfect. I'm not in this thread to say "I'm better than they are." I'm no better, nor no worse. I came to this forum originally to respond to an unfair attack, which has been, thankfully resolved. I stayed on here because I found this forum to be a place where I could really become part of the community of photographers... photography is one of my many passions and I've never belonged to a community before where I could share my passions with everyone. I tried it on APUG and boy did that not work out, but I know I'm not alone on that. So, while I'm not an expert on large format photography, I've spent many a late night taking a break form layout or fighting many bouts of insomnia reading about it here and learning about other people's passions.

The afformentioned people seem to feel that because I run a photography magazine, I should be perfect and without flaws. And if I'm not - then they will attack. Instead of asking them to be banned from this forum, I ask them to accept me for who I am - someone who will never be perfect, but always try to do what I feel is the "right" thing (and no, that wasn't meant to be political). I'm here to be friends and to discuss pssions with as many people as I can... just as all of you are. If the people do not wish to accept me, then ignore me. Don't talk to me. Say to yourself in your head "I hate that son of a b*tch!" but don't post it on here. I promise to do the same.

[Don Hutton]

David

It's clear that you missed QT's response to your accusations about why the lounge was closed and what this forum is about - perhaps you should re-read it - particularly the second part.
Not as far as I am aware. Don Hutton's statement on the forum mission and how the forum topics relate to large format photography is basically correct. The forum was never intended for people with little knowledge or interest in large format photography to come and discuss politics and current events.

[more photography]

"outlaw" discussions of politics and religion, either as thread starters or within posts/responses, anywhere on the forum, including the Lounge. --The Moderator Team


About time =- well done, this is alarge format forum not about politics - i support this move, as of late it was becoming too political.

[Rodney Polden]

So, once again, dear moderators and QT, my sincere thanks for all that you are doing to keep this forum running right. Having said which, it still remains true that what is going on here is simply "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

If three kids in kindergarten get into a terrible tantrum-fight which involves, among other things, a peanut butter sandwich, it would be a barely competent child-minder who would suggest "from tomorrrow, nobody is allowed to have peanut butter in their sandwiches". The issue here, surely, is the behaviour and the quality of the discourse of those who post. The issue is certainly not specific to politics or religion, otherwise no sane community would permit either a church to be built or a local government to be elected.

Adult human beings who are not suffering from mental illness are quite able to discuss either topic as naturally and as comfortably, as they would discuss race, sex, sport, literature, the meaning of life or anything else that had resonance for them. Whether the desire to shut down discussion amongst others, as seems to be being advocated occasionally here, constitutes a specific mental illness or not, might best be addressed by... well, maybe the spouses of those who do so?

Anger is often driven by the underlying motivator of fear.

Why some adults, particularly in the US, seem so fearful of allowing or witnessing discussion that contains verbal disagreement, is a topic of concern to many of the rest of us around the world. Surely you are not thinking that every interaction containing disagreement has to end in tears and gunplay?

It is by exploring our differences (and our similarities) that we come to find understanding and respect for each other, and through that respect, we are all validated and grow in our humanity.

Civility and thoughtfulness are always a good idea, no?

It might be more useful for the moderators to additionally ban any comment posted after consuming: one beer/ three cups of coffee/ any quantity of pyro.

(If the fact that I wrote the words 'politics and religion' have caused me to verge near the abyss, please warn me kindly in capital letters - I am trying to figure out what on earth this is all about.)

[BrianShaw]

Why some adults, particularly in the US, seem so fearful of allowing or witnessing discussion that contains verbal disagreement, is a topic of concern to many of the rest of us around the world.

Please don't paint Americans with such a wide paintbrush. :)

Perhaps you really meant "..., particularly in New York City, ..." :o

[D. Bryant]

Surely you are not thinking that every interaction containing disagreement has to end in tears and gunplay?

What a load of pure drivel! :mad:


Don Bryant

[Rodney Polden]

D.Bryant......... What a load of pure drivel!

Thank you to Michael Kadillak for one of the most sensible responses posted anywhere on the forum, as related to the occasional insulting posts that lower the whole tone and quality of our conversation here:

"Lastly, it is far better to be part of the solution and thinking carefully about your post as opposed to being a piss ant and letting your emotion run your commentary."

Thank you, Michael. I wish that all members had that level of maturity.

[D. Bryant]

"Lastly, it is far better to be part of the solution and thinking carefully about your post as opposed to being a piss ant and letting your emotion run your commentary."



Yeah, like your stupid comment about guns and tears in your first post in this thread.

Real sharp thinking there Rodney.

Don Bryant

[Ralph Barker]

Come on, guys. Let's not devolve into discussions of the relative albedo of pots and kettles.

The change to the Lounge rules was made after several long discussions among the moderators over the last year or so. It is what it is.

Let's get back to discussing large format photography.

[D. Bryant]

Come on, guys. Let's not devolve into discussions of the relative albedo of pots and kettles.

The change to the Lounge rules was made after several long discussions among the moderators over the last year or so. It is what it is.

Let's get back to discussing large format photography.
Thanks Ralph - I'll chill. Sorry for stirring the pot!:o

[Brian Ellis]

My suggestion is that all of the people who liked to argue in the Lounge get together, create your own forum (Yahoo groups are easy to set up and are free), and you can have at it there. Or just agree to all participate in one of the hundreds of political discussion forums that already exist on the Web. I'm really at a loss to understand why people who participate in a forum devoted to LF photography feel that they must also have a section where they can argue about politics, religion, etc. It's not like there's any lack of places devoted to those topics elsewhere. And the argument that some of the people who participate only in the Lounge will leave under this new policy isn't persuasive at all. Why would those of us interested in LF photography care whether people who participate only in the Lounge leave?

[Greg Lockrey]

My suggestion is that all of the people who liked to argue in the Lounge get together, create your own forum (Yahoo groups are easy to set up and are free), and you can have at it there. Or just agree to all participate in one of the hundreds of political discussion forums that already exist on the Web. I'm really at a loss to understand why people who participate in a forum devoted to LF photography feel that they must also have a section where they can argue about politics, religion, etc. It's not like there's any lack of places devoted to those topics elsewhere. And the argument that some of the people who participate only in the Lounge will leave under this new policy isn't persuasive at all. Why would those of us interested in LF photography care whether people who participate only in the Lounge leave?

Already been done.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/largeformatpolitics/?yguid=9540790

[Frank Petronio]

I'm for a free lounge, it was unique to have a photo community having these discussions rather than random internet people whom you don't have any other connection with. And even though most of the lounge participants had different views than I did, most were thoughtful and kept things civil.

But... I've rethunk it. Watching the conversation devolve here, by lounge proponents arguing FOR the lounge and STILL getting into a pissing a match, made it pretty clear that any hope for consistently civil, thoughtful arguments and discussions -- much less fun and kidding around -- are impossible. I know it's just human nature but thanks anyway for ruining it for the rest of us....

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I'm for a free lounge, it was unique to have a photo community having these discussions rather than random internet people whom you don't have any other connection with. And even though most of the lounge participants had different views than I did, most were thoughtful and kept things civil.

But... I've rethunk it. Watching the conversation devolve here, by lounge proponents arguing FOR the lounge and STILL getting into a pissing a match, made it pretty clear that any hope for consistently civil, thoughtful arguments and discussions -- much less fun and kidding around -- are impossible. I know it's just human nature but thanks anyway for ruining it for the rest of us....

If my suggestions had been followed, this mess would have never occured with everyone I mentioned weighing on how much they dislike me. Their viewpoints were not called for and were irrelevant. Failure to listen to my suggestions and to ban the offenders caused the Lounge to deteriorate into mayhem at times ergo we lost the Lounge. Even with the loss of the Lounge, all of the offending parties' behavior should not go unpunished. If this forum is truly private, the moderators should not allow users who have launched personal attacks on others. Perhaps after a period of peace on LFF, we can re-visit the idea. Until then...

[Frank Petronio]

Dave, I agree that the moderators should have banned people more than closing the lounge to political and religious discussions. But sometimes web communities just go sour and they need some time to let the silly, evil trolls move on to infect some other community. I'm starting to see that was the case here -- perhaps they couldn't have banned enough people, and because some people were sneaking back with new aliases, it was a fool's errand to try to ban all the a-holes.

My comments were not aimed at you in particular and in general I'm sympathetic to what you're saying other than to remind you, "Please don't feed the trolls" (and they will go away.) By giving them so much attention, it just perpetuates the bad scene.

[davidb]

Get over it Spivak. No more politics here.

In your last 80 posts here, only 5 have been about photography.

[Scott Davis]

If my suggestions had been followed, this mess would have never occured with everyone I mentioned weighing on how much they dislike me. Their viewpoints were not called for and were irrelevant. Failure to listen to my suggestions and to ban the offenders caused the Lounge to deteriorate into mayhem at times ergo we lost the Lounge. Even with the loss of the Lounge, all of the offending parties' behavior should not go unpunished. If this forum is truly private, the moderators should not allow users who have launched personal attacks on others. Perhaps after a period of peace on LFF, we can re-visit the idea. Until then...

David-

I was about to say I'm surprised, but on second thought I'm NOT surprised that you think it was all about you. Certainly, the back-and-forth you experienced was a contributory factor, but as someone who more often than not avoided commenting in the lounge but still read the threads, there was plenty of puerile acrimony being tossed around on numerous topics, many of which you never participated in, enough to justify the moderators decision. I'll be glad to see it behind us, so I can go back to respecting the various fonts of photographic wisdom here for their relevant contributions, instead of wanting to ignore folks for arguing distastefully.

[Daniel Grenier]

Get over it Spivak. No more politics here.

In your last 80 posts here, only 5 have been about photography.

Indeed. The music's been turned off so get the F*&% off the dance floor David. And have a great day :cool:

[Juergen Sattler]

Indeed. The music's been turned off so get the F*&% off the dance floor David. And have a great day :cool:

Why is it so hard for some people to stay civil?

[domenico Foschi]

Indeed. The music's been turned off so get the F*&% off the dance floor David. And have a great day :cool:



It is just because of this inflammatory comments and attacks that we had that problem and,...hear hear, no political issue has been raised!

As you moderators can see and I dare say I think you know, the problem are some elements who are not able to have a decent dialog or at best apply self discipline to refrain their aggression.
So here you are more insults and nobody mentioned Palin, McCain, Obama who said he wants to kill Osama.

[Geary Lyons]

It is just because of this inflammatory comments and attacks that we had that problem and,...hear hear, no political issue has been raised!

As you moderators can see and I dare say I think you know, the problem are some elements who are not able to have a decent dialog or at best apply self discipline to refrain their aggression.
So here you are more insults and nobody mentioned Palin, McCain, Obama who said he wants to kill Osama.

Unfortunately. all too often the easy, expedient courses of action only address the symptom. As this thread has shown, the problem is members of this forum that exhibit unacceptable behavior without the consequences set forth in the guidelines. IMO, these forum members, that exhibit said bad behavior, have been encouraged and empowered by the lack of appropriate consequences.

Geary

[BrianShaw]

...these forum members, that exhibit said bad behavior, have been encouraged and empowered by the lack of appropriate consequences.

They should be spanked!

[kev curry]

If my suggestions had been followed, this mess would have never occured with everyone I mentioned weighing on how much they dislike me. Their viewpoints were not called for and were irrelevant. Failure to listen to my suggestions and to ban the offenders caused the Lounge to deteriorate into mayhem at times ergo we lost the Lounge. Even with the loss of the Lounge, all of the offending parties' behavior should not go unpunished. If this forum is truly private, the moderators should not allow users who have launched personal attacks on others. Perhaps after a period of peace on LFF, we can re-visit the idea. Until then...


David,

I just read through your post and thought that I would like to ask you some basic questions if I may?

1) Have you formally apologized to the forum member you recently attacked by accusing him of being a ''pedophile''?
(The moderators quickly deleted that disturbing post and I think we should continue to respect the members anonymity for obvious reasons)

2) Have you surrendered your other identities to the moderators yet?

3) If any objective assessment was made of your own past behavior based on the criteria that you outline above where do you think that that would leave you?

Look forward to hearing your answers
Sincerely
kev

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

A: It is possible, with the afformentioned users suspended or banned from this forum to have civil, intelligent discussions in a lounge about any topic.

B: I had posted my thoughts in this thread for many pages and not one person attacked me until I brought up the root cause for the Lounge being a certain number of users. Those users further proved my point by, you guessed it, attacking me.

C: If anyone were to research their posts, they would see I am not their only target. They have targeted other users as well. One such post told someone to "go masturbate somewhere else."

Plain and simple: These people need to be removed from this forum. If the moderators feel I've caused any of the ruccus, I would be more than happy to discuss that with them and would subject myself to whatever appropriate action they would feel necessary.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Get over it Spivak. No more politics here.

In your last 80 posts here, only 5 have been about photography.

It's quality. Not quantity. I don't have many questions that need to be answered. When I do, I will post them.

[davidb]

75 of those post pertained to politics.

That is my point. If you have nothing photographic to say or talk about, why come here?

[jb7]

you wish it would just go away,
and then you hit 'submit reply'

doh!

[QT Luong]

It's quality. Not quantity. I don't have many questions that need to be answered. When I do, I will post them.

In the thread you started about "Contemporary v. traditional", I asked you specifically to give us your opinion in the subject, and I don't think you have provided any significant contributions, which is a bit surprising for the publisher of a magazine dedicated to photographic art. I suggest that the thought you (and others) put into extraneous subjects be put to use in those kind of dialogs. Instead, after you joined the forum, the number of gratuitous political threads increased dramatically. Those threads, by human nature always turn hostile, so by starting so many of them you were part of the problem.

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

Well, nobody posted any waterfall pics. How about trees and rocks? Anyone got a few of those to show?

Seriously, folks... I thought this was the Large Format forum, not the Get in a Fight forum. If I want to get in a heated argument I can just walk across the street to the construction site and say something disparaging about some big guy's recent matrilineal ancestry. I don't go looking for fights at a photography forum, for crying out loud.

[domenico Foschi]

Instead, after you joined the forum, the number of gratuitous political threads increased dramatically. Those threads, by human nature always turn hostile, so by starting so many of them you were part of the problem.

I can't believe I am taking David Spivak side.......
QT are you saying that the person who is insulted is also to blame because he is the one who started some of the threads?
What about the responsibility of the people who offend?


What do you mean gratuitous political threads?

WHat about this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41053 that might have offended deeply some people and was allowed to live and show how low Human nature can go?

But my real question is: why not get rid of the offenders instead of banning political and religious topics in the Lounge, when we have seen in this very thread that an aggressive mind will be so at any occasion it finds?

[BrianShaw]

Seriously, folks... I thought this was the Large Format forum, not the Get in a Fight forum.

perhaps this thread should be moved to The Lounge. :eek:

[davidb]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Seems to get revived by a single person.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

In the thread you started about "Contemporary v. traditional", I asked you specifically to give us your opinion in the subject, and I don't think you have provided any significant contributions, which is a bit surprising for the publisher of a magazine dedicated to photographic art. I suggest that the thought you (and others) put into extraneous subjects be put to use in those kind of dialogs. Instead, after you joined the forum, the number of gratuitous political threads increased dramatically. Those threads, by human nature always turn hostile, so by starting so many of them you were part of the problem.

With respect, I disagree with you. There is a level of intellect that many of the users on this forum hold that is exclusive to this forum only. A vast majority, 80-90% of the users in the Lounge had no problems with each other and never let any of the conversations get out of hand. This is simple physics. Cause and effect. You have a group of people who have no ability to join in the discussion with others and not resort to personal attacks. They caused the Lounge to deterioate. The effect was people complained and were turned off by the lounge and in effect the forum.

There were indeed many threads I started, but the threads that did not have those users in it never went down. Several of us complained to those people to stop the attacks and that everything was fine until they came around. When the people who I mentioned did not partake in discussions, which 99% of the time turned hostile because of them, everyone else was able to have a normal, intelligent discussion. Donald Miller has started many, MANY more political threads than I have and ANY time they turned hostile it was due to the people who I mentioned deciding to attack either me or other people. No one else was in a fight attacking each other or me, except for these people. These people didn't attack me because of politics. Seriously, my personal and professional lives have no bearing whatsoever on discussions dozens of other people take part in discussions.

As far as your post in that thread, I did not see it. I'll have to look again. I was wondering why such a good topic died out so quickly.

[BrianShaw]

Don't know how to tie it in as no cameras when it happened ...

Well, do you think the Shroud is a photographic image... or just an image?

[domenico Foschi]

Well, do you think the Shroud is a photographic image... or just an image?

It's at the very least a contact print.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

What if Jesus runs for president...

He can't. He is not a native born citizen. Since he was tried and executed he may also have been convicted of a Felony, another no-no to keep him from election.

Don't know how to tie it in as no cameras when it happened though if I had been there maybe I could have photographed it with and 8x10 Deardorff made of Gopherwood from the ark?

Conceivably, if Jesus was re-born from an American mother, inside of America or American territories, he could run. Not sure what that means for people born in the Panama Canal, though.

Would Jesus, in spiritual form actually show up as a photograph? Can you actually photograph a ghost or a spirit? Do they actually exist? Sounds like Lounge fodder to me.

[The Dread Pirate Robins]

What if Jesus runs for president...

We all know who'd make snide comments about him being a "community organizer."

[Marko]

With respect, I disagree with you. There is a level of intellect that many of the users on this forum hold that is exclusive to this forum only. A vast majority, 80-90% of the users in the Lounge had no problems with each other and never let any of the conversations get out of hand. This is simple physics. Cause and effect. You have a group of people who have no ability to join in the discussion with others and not resort to personal attacks. They caused the Lounge to deterioate. The effect was people complained and were turned off by the lounge and in effect the forum.

There were indeed many threads I started, but the threads that did not have those users in it never went down. Several of us complained to those people to stop the attacks and that everything was fine until they came around. When the people who I mentioned did not partake in discussions, which 99% of the time turned hostile because of them, everyone else was able to have a normal, intelligent discussion. Donald Miller has started many, MANY more political threads than I have and ANY time they turned hostile it was due to the people who I mentioned deciding to attack either me or other people. No one else was in a fight attacking each other or me, except for these people. These people didn't attack me because of politics. Seriously, my personal and professional lives have no bearing whatsoever on discussions dozens of other people take part in discussions.


I will go out on a limb and concur with this statement.

It wasn't the discussions that turned the Lounge into the rotten cesspool that it has become, it was the inability or unwillingness of certain number of users to behave like educated grown-ups at their right minds.

And it wasn't only happening in The Lounge either, it was only most common there. And it is still happening, in and out of The Lounge. If you want proof of it, look no further than this very thread which was supposed to be an announcement about putting an end to it!

That being said, David, this is a golden opportunity for you to keep silent for a while and demonstrate the difference you point out. I honestly think you should not miss it.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

We all know who'd make snide comments about him being a "community organizer."

Who would play him on SNL? I think Hammond, who does former and wanna-be presidents, would do an excellent job.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I will go out on a limb and concur with this statement.

It wasn't the discussions that turned the Lounge into the rotten cesspool that it has become, it was the inability or unwillingness of certain number of users to behave like educated grown-ups at their right minds.

And it wasn't only happening in The Lounge either, it was only most common there. And it is still happening, in and out of The Lounge. If you want proof of it, look no further than this very thread which was supposed to be an announcement about putting an end to it!

That being said, David, this is a golden opportunity for you to keep silent for a while and demonstrate the difference you point out. I honestly think you should not miss it.

I concur. My point has been made and there many who agree with me. I do not see anything that I could further contribue to this discussion that I have not already contributed. I don't want to be redundant. If I see that I could further contribute something, I will, however; I highly doubt it.

There are other discussions to move onto, even discussions within this discussion that have piqued my interest. Plus, I want to give an in-depth response to QT's question about traditional vs. contemporary photography. I highly doubt the trolls will continue to troll now that they've been rooted out.

[kev curry]

David,

I just read through your post and thought that I would like to ask you some basic questions if I may?

1) Have you formally apologized to the forum member you recently attacked by accusing him of being a ''pedophile''?
(The moderators quickly deleted that disturbing post and I think we should continue to respect the members anonymity for obvious reasons)

2) Have you surrendered your other identities to the moderators yet?

3) If any objective assessment was made of your own past behavior based on the criteria that you outline above where do you think that that would leave you?

Look forward to hearing your answers
Sincerely
kev


A: It is possible, with the afformentioned users suspended or banned from this forum to have civil, intelligent discussions in a lounge about any topic.

B: I had posted my thoughts in this thread for many pages and not one person attacked me until I brought up the root cause for the Lounge being a certain number of users. Those users further proved my point by, you guessed it, attacking me.

C: If anyone were to research their posts, they would see I am not their only target. They have targeted other users as well. One such post told someone to "go masturbate somewhere else."

Plain and simple: These people need to be removed from this forum. If the moderators feel I've caused any of the ruccus, I would be more than happy to discuss that with them and would subject myself to whatever appropriate action they would feel necessary.

David,

Why cant you directly address the above questions that I have asked you?

Why cant you take responsibility for your own conduct and the part that you yourself played in the degeneration and derailment of the lounge?

Look forward to your answers.
Sincerely
kev

[Brian_A]

I know this is gunna kill you all, but can we quit whining about something that doesn't exist - nor will it exist - anymore? Who cares what who said what when? Deal with it. Just deal with it. It's in the past. You all sound like a bunch of children. This place is here for large format photography. (Either that or the domain name really has me fooled) Let's take this emotion and put it behind real topics like which 90mm is the best or how Mr. Kitchen is creating those awesome landscapes.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

David,

Why cant you directly address the above questions that I have asked you?

Why cant you take responsibility for your own conduct and the part that you yourself played in the degeneration and derailment of the lounge?

Look forward to your answers.
Sincerely
kev

Thank you for proving my point yet again.

[BrianShaw]

Conceivably, if Jesus was re-born from an American mother, inside of America or American territories, he could run. Not sure what that means for people born in the Panama Canal, though.

:eek:

[QT Luong]

> QT are you saying that the person who is insulted is also to blame because he is the one who started some of the threads?

A person who repeatedly starts political controversial threads is partly to blame for the disruption caused by those threads

> What about the responsibility of the people who offend?

They bear most of it.

> What do you mean gratuitous political threads?

Those that have no relation to photography, do not display original thought, and discuss topics that are essentially trivial.

> WHat about this thread http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=41053 that might have offended deeply some people and was allowed to live and show how low Human nature can go?

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I just deleted it.

> But my real question is: why not get rid of the offenders instead of banning political and religious topics in the Lounge, when we have seen in this very thread that an aggressive mind will be so at any occasion it finds?

The alternative is not without problems neither. We felt it would be preferable to return this forum to its roots, which is photography.

[jnantz]

We felt it would be preferable to return this forum to its roots, which is photography.

much appreciated!

[nelsonfotodotcom]

Allow me to present a possible solution to the matter at hand.

While I fully respect the decision(s) of site-mod(s) here at LFPf, I do enjoy a bit of off-topic chatter.

On my forums there are two off-topic areas. One is hidden from view from all who are not logged-in. The latter also requires switches to be thrown in a user's account in order to view.

Admission to said private area is by request, as in you register, then request access. The rules are clear on my end. Here it was loose and I played hard now and again as when in Rome... well, my back-yard ain't Rome, but it is open to topics related to politics among others. I am the only moderator at NFf, and I do enforce the no-abuse policy, with relish.

That's what I can and will now offer. I'm not looking to build member numbers as my goal has always been small community, slow growth. I'm only trying to help sooth the situation here.

Best,
Craig

[Jim Ewins]

No more talk about Homeland Security and lost film/equip etc.

[Juergen Sattler]

No more talk about Homeland Security and lost film/equip etc.

Come on Jim, we all know the world is not black and white - why do some always have to take any changes to the absolute extreme? I am pretty sure that none of the moderators would mind a post about lost equipment and the problems he/she had with home security screenings at the airport. We all know which posts the moderators are referring to when they made the decision. It is uncalled for to paint the moderators as in-tolerant dictators - I would argue that this is one of the most tolerant forums out there on the web. Try to have any political controversial discussions on pnet or any other photography sites - you'd get banned in no time.

[Mark Sloane]

QT,

This website and forum are almost irreplaceable as a source of information for experienced and inexperienced photographers alike. Nothing can be more important than ensuring the health and integrity of this great resource.

Therefore, changing the rules to the lounge hurts to a point but is easily accepted when you put it into perspective.

I personally am ambivalent about the “new lounge”. On one hand I am delighted to be rid of the ill mannered and uncivil dialog. On the other hand, there are some very intelligent and knowledgeable people on the lounge who have been able to answer questions for me about modern history, global economies, and cultural issues that I may not have been exposed to before.

In many instances I also found the lounge to be somewhat of a microcosm of society. Often times we are surrounded by friends and family that do not represent the breadth and depth of ideology that exists in America and around the world and I found it very interesting to meet and communicate with all these different people.

The ideal of an un-moderated lounge was an interesting experiment. The results point to a well known and disappointing reality……human behavior needs to be moderated for the benefit of society.

Which leaves us with the conclusion that the rule change is absolutely required unless someone volunteers to moderate the lounge.

[CG]

I value this forum, first, as a photographic information resource, and also as a close second, as a place to have human contact with others who share a photographic interest.

The loss of a place to rant is a minor loss as there are many places seemingly dedicated solely ranting. I'll do any ranting elsewhere should I feel the need.

I suspect this forum will feel more communal now that we won't be ranting at each other quite so much. It's bad enough that photo topics can be divisive. So, thanks to the moderators for a good decision.

C

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Good decision. Thinking of the purpose of this forum, to exchange knowledge, ideas, and discuss topics that have to do with large format photography, a place to talk about religion and politics seem completely irrelevant to me.
Large Format Photography Forum.

- Thomas

[GSX4]

I normally stay neutral in many of these threads, but it's time to speak up here. I concur with the decision to clean up the lounge forum and ban the type of posts that are even filtering into this announcment thread. Such mean spirited personal attacks in many cases.. It's an internet forum about large format photography, not a political rallying point so get over it. If I wanted another run down on the latest political ineptitudes from both policitcal parties I'd go to a related forum, or turn on the TV hear the same old drivel there. These posts do nothing to promote LF photography and have actually turned me away from this site to a point where I minimally post anymore as a result. So much bickering that's so unnecessary. I choose not to look at all of the posts, and those that I have made the mistake of looking at, I notice that the majority of them are the same rogues gallery of names in the many garbage threads posted in the lounge. This makes me apprehensive about getting regular questions answered on the main focus areas of this forum from these same people. Why can't we all just get along and get over the fact that a decsion has been made to better the site. Thank you Mods.

[rknewcomb]

It would appear that this thread has become the new lounge space.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I think the decision is pretty messed up considering you'd have no web site if it wasn't for free thinking artists' like you and me... Bring us your photos and just keep your mouth shut we'll handle the rest...
I'm confused,, I thought that ( in USA anyway) a lounge is a pub,bar, which means a place to gather and talk and relax...
I'd really like to know why "artists" would consider having another evangelical christian "extremist" in our white house ... Especially the ones that like to take pics of boobs... Also if your gonna mess with me about my comment DON'T mess with my computer this time..! That shits gettin old

[jim kitchen]

I thought that ( in USA anyway) a lounge is a pub,bar, which means a place to gather and talk and relax...

Dear Steve,

You forgot to add the words "and fight..."

jim k

[Ralph Barker]

Steve, you need to take another look at the forum banner. You're free to relax and talk about photography in the lounge here, and free to talk about anything else . . . elsewhere.

[Sergey Botvin]

Too bad... Lounge is easy to block off if you're offended by it.
But there was a lot of interesting thoughts and opinions. I'll miss unsanitized Lounge.
More than that- I'm blocking the Lounge off from now on. :)

[Jim Graves]

I agree with Sergey ... too bad.

20% of the interesting content in this forum is now gone ... just because it being out there someplace made some people uncomfortable. The ironic thing is, that's how this country got started ... certain people in Europe being intolerant of others' beliefs and self-expression caused an exodus to a "free" country.

We're so proud of our free speech, free exchange of ideas, open debate, etc. ... and then this ... sure, it's a "Large Format Forum" ... but how nice to have a place where people with a common interest could air out current topics ... and, O.K., sometimes over-the-top and less than graciously ... but the group generally brought the malefactors up short and the threads ended up being self-policing.

I've never understood why these kind of exchanges make others uncomfortable ... but they obviously do. I wish, though, that the issue had been put to a vote ... because I think the "live-and-let-live" vote would have prevailed. At least, I hope it would have.

[Frank Petronio]

Well I guess the "land of the free" means that people are free to be p@ssies too.

[Greg Lockrey]

And the printer head goes back and forth.... back and forth.... :eek:

[Jim Graves]

See ... now those are exactly the kind of responses I'm going to miss!!!!!!

[stuart goodman]

As an apolitical staunch Left Wing Conservative and God-fearing Atheist I applaude your move.....I think.

too subtle.

possibly

[William McEwen]

Vote Quimby!

(Sorry -- I couldn't resist a Simpsons reference.)

http://www.snorgtees.com/votequimby-p-514.html